A Smidge of Joker's Origin Story, And I talk Character Interpretations

[espanolbot]

Only a small section here, due to the original stories back in the 40s being only 12 pages long, but I'm kind of trying to make a point.










The original story of the Joker's plan of basically poisoning prominent businesspeople and announcing it publically first to make them as scared as possible, has been redone at least twice. One time in the 90s and another more recently by Ed Brubaker, in a story that I'll be posting after I'm done with Black Lightning Year One.

The interesting thing is that people complain when the Joker doesn't use clown gimmicks or has "murder superpowers" when really, they're a more consistant part of the character from his inception.

People seem to get hung up on the idea that he's trying to tell a Cosmic Joke in the same way that they buy into his lies in the Dark Knight that he's actually a "servant of Chaos", which are valid interpretations, but like with Batman there are so many ways you can handle the character that saying any one way is right or wrong can get a bit tedious. Every version has it's postives, even that kungfu juggalo one from 'the Batman' cartoon.



Heck, even Paul Dini, considered by many to be one of the, if not THE, co-creator of the definative version of the Joker from the past twenty years aknowledges that spreading fear and terrorising people is a huge part of the character.


Kind of a shame that they're not bringing him back for the Arkham City sequel, really.

My point? People have been bashing Scott Snyder's interpretation of the Joker sight unseen, based on a misdrawn, pixellated cover and an uncoloured panel, without actually seeing what the Joker does or behaves within the story. Scott Snyder covers some of the complaints here. Snyder has repeatedly shown himself to be one of the better Batman writers of recent years, and I think that we should at least give him the benefit of a doubt until we can actually read the story he's put together, ye ken?

Comments

[whoha]

Asking people to be civil and reasonable on the internet is like asking a dog not to lick itself in the groin.

[espanolbot]

True, people here are normally more reasonable though unless it's actually deserved. For example,

[icon_uk]

Courtesy is certainly to be hoped for. I confess I'm not a huge Scott Snyder fan the way I know others are, but I hope I'll give the man his due as a gifted creator (There are many I feel that way about and I hope I've always been polite about it).

To be honest I haven't seen that much in the way of bashing of Snyder (I think I've seen more bashing of Benes than Snyder), though I have seen a lot of discussion (positive and negative) about the Joker's apparent new look, which is all we have to go on at the moment and therefore seems a valid area for discussion.

The Joker's personality has, I would say, always been open to much wider interpretation than his visual. Cold blooded serial killer as in his introduction, playful prankster a la 1950's or "murder god" of the 90's, the circus clown look has been consistent (however one personally feels about clowns as a source of humour or terror on the whole).

Apart from the rictus smile in many takes on him (though even then that was usually flexible to allow for some other facial expressions, look at the first ever face shot of him that you posted above), he could always be a guy in makeup, and that's now gone for what appears to be a pseudo-Leatherface look. That's going to rile/intrigue people and based on DC's marketing of the DCnU, it strikes me is intended to.

As I've said, it's possible that the belted on "face-mask" is a bluff and there is something yet to be revealed and truly uniquely terrifying underneath, but if that IS the final look for the Joker it seems a very odd choice to have made.

I think this perhaps goes down to what IIRC Boris Karloff once described as the difference between horror films and terror films; A horror film shows scenes that horrify you (natch) and make you feel sick to your stomach. A terror film, sometimes without showing any gore at all, makes you scared to go upstairs in the dark by yourself afterwards.

I'm rarely a fan of horror films (With a couple of exceptions), but I LOVE terror films and this new Joker looks more "horror" than his old look, which had a much stronger "terror" element to it.

Previously the Joker outlining a plan would look like a demented circus clown describing something genuinely hideous, that's an interesting tonal contrast. The new look Joker doing the same thing would look like a monster with a stitched-on severed face describing something hideous... that's not a lot of contrast at all, and that makes a big difference.

But hey, different strokes for different folks and all, maybe this will be a Joker I end up loving, maybe it's one I will end up loathing. As you say, we'll see when we see what the writers do with him.

[espanolbot]

From what what Snyder said in the statement behind the link he seems to say that the reason why the Joker is like this is due to it being the certain staus quo, and if he hadn't had his face peeled off he wouldn't look like this now.

Maybe it'll be fixed later, we'll have to wait and see.

[arbre_rieur]

When it comes to changes to the status quo, I think we as fans should always keep in mind the example of Ed Brubaker's Winter Soldier stuff during his CAPTAIN AMERICA run. Revealing that Bucky -- who fans used to frequently joke was, along with Jason Todd, one of the only two superheroes for whom dead was actually dead -- was alive and a brainwashed cyborg assassin badass *sounds* like the most ill-conceived, creatively bankrupt idea, well, ever. But look how that turned out.

I think, too often, we judge a story more on whether or not it's something we'd do than on whether it works or not in its own right.

[arbre_rieur]

Also, too often, we treat any changes a writer makes as some kind of mission statement, some attempt to turn the characters towards the writer's platonic ideal of them. "Scott Snyder thinks this is how the Joker OUGHT to be." But changes can also be for the sake of a specific story, or to serve the demands of a specific context.

[icon_uk]

Though, for contrast, look at how the Jason Todd was returned. He has his fans now, now doubt and gawdblessem, but the actual resurrection remains a serious clusterfuck of a story, involving such delights as one-way motion sensors and Superboy Prime punching the walls of reality

[mrstatham]

I have to say that throughout this stuff with the Joker's face in the recent week, it's more DC marketing that I've been annoyed by. I don't think Benes is a particularly good artist, and I don't think that cover's particularly good - lord knows I am sick of seeing the prone, unconscious superhero with a villain leering over them - but he isn't the problem. DC marketing IS.

How simple would it have been to blank out the Joker until.. I don't know, a week until the book's about to be released? Or after Batman #14 is out? It's not rocket science.

But I'm still not massively encouraged by what seems to be the current take on Joker, which is still just a murderous clown with little imagination behind him; I know - and espanolbot has pointed this out - that being little more than a horrid-looking murderer is part of the thing in the Joker's first incarnation, but.. I don't know. Is it too much to ask for something like the BTAS take on the Joker being something they could transplant into the current books? That one could be violent and horrible, but still funny. And I haven't found the comic Joker funny in years.

[kurenai_tenka]

Regarding the interview... I was under the impression (from another recent interview) that the face removal was something Daniel and Snyder came up with together... but from this it sounds more like it was all Daniel's idea and this is just Snyder's follow-up?

As for the story itself, I'm sure Snyder's story will be fantastic, it's everyone else's that I'm worried about. XP

[mrstatham]

The story's gone back and forth a few times, now. Some say Snyder came up with it and Daniel executed it in his first issue, but Snyder is on record as having talked with Daniel, Daniel was going to remove the Joker's face anyway, and Snyder wanted to use it after his Court of Owls story was done.

But.. Yeah. I agree with you. Snyder's story should be good, but having looked at stuff like the solicits for Simone's Batgirl tie-ins, Simone's telling us that Barbara and the Joker WILL meet, but it won't go the way Joker's expecting. Which means he's going to get his ass kicked. And that.. To me, it's like, why? Doesn't that dilute or even invalidate the level of Joker's threat in Snyder's main story?

[icon_uk]

It would be very odd to make such a drastic change to one of their most easily identifiable and (sorry, that word again) iconic, characters without at least some creative discussion and editorial input/awareness. Usually DC are being accused of micromanagement, not letting things like that slip under the radar.

[sadoeuphemist]

But the Court of Owls sucked, tho.

To elaborate, the Court was ostensibly supposed to challenge Batman's confidence in his control of Gotham. But Batman's supposed overconfidence had little bearing on the story, and the Court was largely a creepy-looking nonentity. If they secretly controlled Gotham all these years, what were they trying to do with it? Who knows? You're just supposed to be intimidated by this society that controls everything, when their influence was so benign that no one noticed they existed. Their main activities seem to be a) making Talons b) sending Talons to kill people. So it turns out the solution to this mysterious scary Court is for Batman to get in his robot suit and start beating up all these zombie ninjas.

So when I hear all this hype about how the Joker's going to be super terrifying and menacing and the greatest villain of all time, it just sounds tedious as hell. Who cares about how powerful the characters are? It's a comic book. I can create a villain who has secretly controlled the world for millions of years and will murder and rape and torture his way through all the heroes and their loved ones and so on so forth. It still won't make for an interesting story.

[espanolbot]

I think that the Court's actions were to possess Gotham as they saw themselves as the landed aristocracy of the city, and subtly tweaked things occasionally to ensure that their power and wealth remains high or increases.

For example, sending Talons after social reformers, whistleblowers and the like who might stop them from just bribing the cops and judges to get away from paying homeless people to fight each other for some rich guy's amusement.

Batman then defeated them by defeating their assassins, effectively removing the teeth from the organisation, so that he can start picking them off one at a time like the arrogant rich snobs that they are.

Of course, this is just my opinion, just as your opinion that "Court of Sucks sucked" is one. You might not agree with mine, just don't think that people automatically agree with your's.

[an_idol_mind]

I've got no idea if Snyder's Joker will be any good or not, but even his early homicidal maniac years are a far cry from the way DC has handled the Joker in recent years. Even the early years had a certain degree of style to them. By comparison, recent years have seen him do such shit as scratching babies with rusty nails for the hell of it.

That's not to mention the ungodly stupid manner in which a lot of people act around the Joker, such as the story where a guy apparently didn't know that his tuna sandwich contained broken light bulbs. Or the way he has the uncanny ability to turn minor injuries into instant death, like killing somebody by making them trip on a banana peel.

Prejudging a story without knowing anything about it is a bit foolish, but DC has spent the last fifteen or so years telling terrible Joker stories. As a company, they haven't exactly inspired much in the way of confidence when it comes to this character.

[mrstatham]

With the banana peel, if you're referring to Doctor Hurt's fate, then it isn't the peel that killed him.

[auggie18]

One of my least favorite Joker moments was in a Birds of Prey storyline. He attempts to join a secret council thing, but they reject him because they're all scared of him. The council member who is the least scared of him attempts to shoot the Joker from about five feet away, empties a clip, and misses. Five feet away. An entire clip. Then the Joker shoots him.

If they just had the Joker draw first, that'd be cool. But having a ton of bullets magically miss? Oy.

[grazzt]

I don't like Joker spreading arbitrary fear. I always thought he used the clown motif (and his insanity) as the opposite of Batman's bat motif. While Batman needs to take on a scary motif to strike fear in criminals and disguise the fact he's simply human, Joker needs the clown to keep people from realizing just how complete a monster he is and shooting him outright. He's the king of having his opponents underestimate him, and he uses that to his advantage at every opportunity.

You can see it in all the best Joker stories. "The Laughing Fish" has his motivation and methods being so absurd you can hardly believe what he's doing. "Five-Way Revenge" has the thugs he targets being more scared of Batman than Joker, with fatal results for most of them. "Mask of the Phantasm" has Hamill brilliantly going from smarmy and pathetic to genuinely menacing, depending on whether he needs the person to actually talk to him or whether he's about to start actually having fun. "The Dark Knight" has Batman decide to go after the Chinese money launderer instead of the Joker because he's "just one man". "Rock of Ages" ends with Joker in possession of ultimate power because the Injustice Gang and Justice League were too focused on beating each other up to realize the clown had taken the titular artifact. "Emperor Joker" is a similar case.

Leave fear to the Scarecrow. Joker should focus on misdirection, dark comedy, and over-the-top set pieces, and letting his opponents do most of the work for him.

[sadoeuphemist]

This seems to be misrepresenting a bunch of the stories? Like, in the Laughing Fish, Joker threatens to kill a patent official for a totally absurd reason, but Batman and the police take the threat completely seriously and protect the guy in his house. Then the Joker kills him anyway. In Mask of the Phantasm Sal Valestra turns to the Joker in desperation, because he believes the Joker is the only one capable enough to kill the Phantasm. In the Dark Knight and Rock of Ages and so on, people don't underestimate the Joker because he looks funny, they underestimate him because he's just one man, and they're too busy focusing on fighting crime syndicates and superhumans and so on.

Plus this relies on everyone in Gotham having no long-term memory, and constantly underestimating him even though they have previously witnessed him murder a bunch of people.

[lucean]

I am in agreement with you that we should wait to see how the story pans out before passing judgement. Personally I'm really looking forward to Snider's big Joker story, although my annoyance will be immense if they have Joker job to secondary characters in their own comics as part of this event. (See the Gail Simone part).

I also very much agree with you're point about there being several versions of the Joker, as to me that is one of the key points which has made the character, similarly to Batman, survive for so long. There are so many ways to tell a story with the character, so many different ways to approach him, while staying completely true to the character. It is a great feature of the character and should be celebrated and honored, which is why I always feel weird reading people explain why the Joker was badly written because he didn't fit in to some explicit version of the character. I am not saying the Joker can't be badly written, I can think of some versions where the character was really awful, but there's difference in being badly written and not matching some argued definition of the character.

And finally I would actually personally argue that Chuck Dixon was a more important writer for the Joker than Paul Dini, but I realize that that is a matter of taste. Personally I feel that Dixon is often uncredited in making the Joker a psychological threat, somebody who could get in to people's heads. But I hope we are in agreement in hoping that Snyder's story will be so awesome that we mention him as one of the definitive writers in years to come.

[icon_uk]

I'm genuinely curious, can you suggest Dixon Joker stories you'd recommend?

I don't recall any that stuck in my memory the some of the ones by Steve Englehart, Alan Grant or Dini did, but I could be overlooking some.

[big_daddy_d]

I personally have no problem with the new Joker. If anything it reminds me of Grant Morrison's version where Joker seems to be someone whose always reinventing himself.

[icon_uk]

Can you identify any way in which the post-Morrison-metamorphosis story Joker was different from the pre-Morrison-metamorphosis Joker, because I certainly can't.

[aeka]

I trust that Snyder will undoubtedly write a great Joker story and get the characterisation down to a T. What I'm not digging is the Leatherface look that they're going for as it doesn't really scream 'Joker' to me, but that could also be me being squeamish too, I guess.

[eyz]

'nuff said!
I'll wait and see to judge it~

(though from the looks of most of the New 52, I fear it might be just flashy with no substance behind it...you know...for mainstream appeal... *Animal Man excluded...or not that much excluded, I still prefer his pre-New 52 stories somehow..*)

[zechs80]

God I love that scene above from Dini's Tec. Such a good run. If only DC could treat it like Morrison's run or Snyder's. It soo needed the same love those two got.